I'm proposing a new page for newspapers ("Page Nine" regardless of the page it runs on), that covers stories afresh, not the way news rooms typically flavor things. It would help reduce the distrust so many readers feel. It could be the most read page in the paper. This issue is a special single-subject edition.

The recent Paris IPCC report on taking the planet's temperature -- and the political and media frenzy surrounding it -- force me to examine so-called "global warming" in a special edition of Page Nine. Long-time readers may recognize some of these arguments, because they remain valid. The overall picture they paint is important.

====

The true root problem in Global Whining is sex. People keep having sex, so they keep popping out babies, so a whole class of problems just gets worse. Any warming (or cooling) being placed under a microscope is not the core problem. This isn't about climate control, it's about climax control.

No government is going to address this. Well, the communist Chinese did in horrific fashion, but we're not going to go there.

Every time you add another billion people, each at 98.6 degrees, things naturally get hotter. Fuel gets used up. More lights get turned on. The demand for fried chicken swells, and chicken poop drainage swells with it. Sex. Don't forget it. Calls to control everything else miss the only key factor.

(North America's food supply includes an estimated two billion chickens, more than 100 million cattle, etc., to handle growing demand. This is about head count.)

====

How easily lamestream reporters (and you) seem to have forgotten that they all vehemently predicted the most massive hurricane season ever for this year.

The season's almost over. The storms haven't arrived. Katrina is a fading memory. They have not brought up these small points. Why should they. It would damage all the Global Whining proposals.

With the gases furiously building up daily, heat trapped from escaping into space, fossil fuels burning non-stop, ice melting, sophisticated super-computer models all in agreement, why no storms? Where's the analysis of the observed result? Why aren't they talking about that?

The lamestream media relies on standardized euphemisms that lead you astray and disguise the real problem:

Clear-cutting, de-forestation, an acre-an-hour and old-growth woods; traffic, congestion, air pollution and urbanization, or what The Uninvited Ombudsman calls clogsmogandsprawl; red-roof syndrome and overpopulation (overpopulation actually comes close to addressing the only real issue); recycle, reduce and reuse (a not unreasonable approach considering the inexorable nature of the problem).

Science, as I've pointed out before and as you remember from your high schooling if you went to high school back when they actually taught science, involves scientific method, which is approximately: theory or postulate, experiment, observation, measurable result, analysis and conclusion, double-blind repeatability.

Politics on the other hand involves voting. When scientists voted to demote Pluto, that wasn't science, it was politics, even though "scientists" did it. The same was true when the IPCC voted unanimously to adopt their report (which, by the way, hasn't been written yet -- everyone's jumping on a preliminary abstract).

When polls (a type of voting) show that most people believe global warming is real and about to ruin the earth and kill you, and that we have to "do" something about it right away, that's not science either. That's purely a result of what passes for "news." The Gary Sepp syllogism is at play: "Polls are tests to see if the propaganda is working."

When Al Gore stages concerts to promote his strongly held beliefs, that's also not science. When he compellingly films his one side of one theory, and jets around the world promoting it, that's definitely not science -- and the inconvenient truth is it's a huge revenue stream (that he claims he's giving away... minus airfare and room and board for the next decade).

When scientists in Paris decided they are 90% sure of their results, that means there is a one-in-ten chance their results are bogus. Madame Curie played a one-in-ten-million chance to discover radium.

The factors at play in climate are so vast and immane, and so far beyond our present comprehension, we can't even predict the weather one week out. Yet we have the gall to predict the planet's condition in a century, and lobby for action. Expensive, collectivist action.

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment...

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint?

A: Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate... Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me... I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear.

Environmentalism and the green ideology are something very different from climate science. Various screams and findings of scientists are misused by this ideology.

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't... Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book [due this year] will answer these questions.

It's also the case that there exist social systems that are damaging the environment, by eliminating private ownership and similar things... These tendencies become crucial in the long term. They unquestionably imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, nature is protected incomparably more than on February 8th ten, fifty, or one hundred years ago.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Klaus enjoys an 82% approval rating from his citizens.

====

The easily observed left-wing-right-wing dichotomy they refer to ought to tell you something. It may be the most salient point of the interview.

When real science develops, say, a robot that can automatically weld car parts without human intervention in a darkened factory (robots don't need light so why waste the power), there's no left-wing-right-wing debate, because that's real science. The green science of global whining is not science, it's politics, hence the debate. Political debate.

"When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works... a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

"Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported...

"Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter's billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages... While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean...

"One awkward question you can ask, when you're forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is "Why is east Antarctica getting colder?" It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you're at it, you might inquire whether government will give you a refund if it's confirmed that global warming has stopped...

"The chief rival hypothesis says that the sun drives climate changes... After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago."

====

Solar activity isn't the only other theory on the table, although there is tremendous evidence to support it -- all conveniently ignored by reporters who should be ashamed of their shoddy and unethical herd-like behavior (but won't be).

Danish scientists have published hard repeatable evidence that cosmic events have a direct effect on cloud formation in the atmosphere, and this has a greater effect on our climate than solar swings and gas bags combined. The main problem with these discoveries is that there's no way to justify tax increases to combat the sun or stars and outer space.

====

Conveniently overlooked in all this are NASA's plans, detailed in Aerospace America, to launch FIVE Earth resources satellites soon (Cloudsat, Calipso, Aquarius, Glory and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, between 2008 to 2010), to gather vitally needed data to help determine how weather patterns work.

NASA explains the need: "The sky stretches above us like an endless canvas, but of its most familiar components, the clouds, we actually know very little... CloudSat will provide new information about the vertical structure of clouds, including the quantities of liquid water and ice they contain, and how clouds affect the distribution of the sun's energy in the atmosphere... Calipso will help scientists develop never-before-seen views of Earth's atmospheric structure and behavior..."

Forking out extra tax dollars in the name of climate change is the real bottom line on global whining. Follow the money. An industry of takers is lining up to gorge at the pot of public money you are going to provide to save the earth, if lefty greenies win the day. It was summed up as best I've seen in a simple letter to the editor in my local paper:

====

"Global warming is nothing but a global gravy train.

"Regarding 'Parched' (an editorial in the standard 'we're doomed from gases' mold): What a crock.

"It's not greenhouse gases that are causing the problem but green money. When the global warmers tell us the stakes are high, they are quite right.

"Global warming has become an immense international gravy train worth billions of dollars. The subject is now one of the largest beneficiaries of government research money in the world.

"This is not a coordinated conspiracy but a fashion, in which self-interest and ideology combine and green activists, politicians and journalists help each other to get more funding, more sensational stories and more enemies to blame.

"It finances jobs, grants, conferences, international travel and journals. It not only keeps a huge army of people in comfortable employment but also fills them with self righteousness and moral superiority.

"It enables the green movement to say, 'The end is nigh unless you give us more funding; repent, and do as we say.'

"Since the end of the last Ice Age, the Earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the 20th century. The cooling and warming of the Earth is a natural cycle."

"The Weather Channel's (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"'If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns,' Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website.

Pulling from the online report: Hollywood, enviros and the media are in lock step demonizing skeptics and legitimate science they don't like. CBS 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley compared scientists who don't agree to Holocaust deniers. One of Cullen's episodes of "The Climate Code" TV show featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts without mentioning his public call to institute what amounts to death penalty Nuremburg-style trials for scientists who express skepticism about global warming: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568. Now there's an open-minded approach to scientific inquiry. The left is earning its bad name.

The gross suppression of free speech and left-wing efforts at thought control on the topic of climate control will be featured in The Uninvited Ombudsman's 11th book on the limits of free speech, expected this year, tentatively entitled "Bomb Jokes For Airports."

Surveys of independent weathermen have shown that many are skeptical of manmade global warming claims, but with their credentials now threatened and intimidation in high gear, no one expects much speech to be coming from them.

The dire predictions bombarding us daily are largely based on something called computer models. Have you ever seen anything about these models other than that phrase? Of course not.

Reporters haven't examined them, wouldn't understand the math, and why bother, when the term itself is sufficiently scary and believable. It is typical reporting methodology -- they're living up to their reputation.

Computer models are being made on the most primitive computers with the most primitive software that will ever exist from this day forward. In ten years we'll look back and say, "They didn't even have a single petabyte of memory in those days, how did they get anything done?" (Petabyte comes after terabyte, and most people are still stuck with a mere few hundred puny gigabytes.)

Remember when you had a blazing rocket-science whiz-bang cathode-ray tube computer with a whopping 20 meg hard drive? That was barely a decade ago. Today, a single nice picture is 20 megs. Boldly saying our machines today are capable of modeling the infinite data of the entire planet is as realistic as the terrifyingly real computer in the 1970s "Forbin Project" movie. It was being fed all the world's knowledge so it could control international geopolitics. The idea made your skin crawl. White-lab-coat scientists were feeding it... with punch cards.

Scary then, silly now. Today's scientists can't even apply the most basic data from NASA's new climate satellites -- because NASA hasn't launched them yet -- much less collected a single decade of data. What unmitigated hubris to declare that these olden programs are up to the task. The best we've got at the moment? Yes. Sufficient to predict the world in a hundred years? Even the brain dead can answer that correctly.

All right. Contradictory evidence is relegated to the back pages, or ignored entirely, to follow the herd. Left wing theories are prominently promoted by the left wing media. No surprise there. Numerous politicians are afraid to speak out and go against the grain, possibly compromising the entire planet (and their careers). Political correctness strangles you just like the political class with the bogus logic of, "but what if they're right -- shouldn't we do something just in case?"

So let me put on my libertarian hat and ask the only question that really really matters to individuals like you and me. If the sun, or the stars, or gases, or aliens, or phenomena we don't even recognize or understand are warming, or even cooling the planet, do my taxes have to go up?

Thanks for reading.

Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman

Tell your friends.

----------

If this report works for you --
tell your friends!
Sign up (or off) for email delivery:alan@gunlaws.com

----------

Do something good for yourself -- get a book or two your school teachers would NEVER recommend:http://www.gunlaws.com

If constitutionalists all moved to one state and started running things the way America ought to be -- would you want to get up and move there? Wait till you see how fabulous that state becomes, while the feds declare them in insurrection! Read "Molon Labe," the superb novel from Boston T. Party. Book review here:http://www.gunlaws.com/books7novels.htm